8 Responses to “Poor Women”

Yes Bevan,
This goes to show that women want it both ways.
No matter how it is, MEN will pay for this.
I can’t help but think that the article on Stuff yesterday about how women will be dis-advantaged by Kiwi-Saver sounds like so much hocum, when men work longer hours and die younger.
Well, a man might not be a financial plan, but the women of this country need to be told of this fact.
But we are paying for the DPB in our taxes aren’t we.

BTW,
Did anyone see the crap on Stuff yesterday about how apparently there are not enough women in senior positions in the Universities these days?.
As if we need more feminists in the system ruling the roost.
Do they want to fill the Uni’s up with Womens Studies groups and the like?.
I say cut thier funding, let them get out and have a sausage sizzle to raise the cash.

It’s about time ALL men were made to suffer the same FASCIST treatment that Sue-the-Slapper Bradford, The ANTI-Clark, Annette-I’m-King-and-I-Don’t-Give-a-f**k, Peter the-Dunce-Dunny-Boy, Judith Goebells (aka Collins) and Chris Take-It-Up-the-Khyber-Pass-Carter have been handing out to the rest of us for decades.

I reiterate an earlier comment:
Men! Sign up to Kiwi Saver. Do it. We should all be saving for our retirements.
But the day you enter into a relationship, CEASE all contributions to your fund. ALWAYS keep the fund-to-date seperate from matrimonial property. Do not contribute to it in any way, whilst you are in the relationship (if you must continue to save whilst in a relationship, find another vehicle / fund for your matrimonial-based savings, but keep them compkletely seperate from pre-matrimonial savings.
That way, when the ievitable happens, only superannuation savings amassed whilst in the relationship can be considered for matrimonial property.

The especially astute co-habitant will ensure the matrimonial savings are in a joint fund, and that you BOTH contribute exactly and precisely equally, since that is the probably proportion you will ultimately exit with.

There is something you both seem intent on forgetting. The anger that you are generating with your posts is unwarranted. You make it worse for us all if we are to take in truth the pendulum and secure it to gravity.

These women in power are not whores. They are flesh and blood. They are advancing their professional carreers on the back of an agenda that has been advanced improperly and illegally.

What more do you want? If you want more then you are damaging everyone by demanding that such anger is justified. It is not. You show yourselves to be brutal – which is the last thing necessary if we are all collectively to achieve the ends which individuals like you Peter have done so much work to effect.

Just stop it. Please. Stop being the kind of people that demand systems are put into place to protect society from unbalanced views of hatred. Then, together, we will all succeed and what you want to achieve – (is this the protection of fatherhood) will be accessible.

If you don’t calm down you will damage the future for us all. We can get there without such unrequired bouts of anger.

These comments by Susan St John are another example of the deep flaws in socialist thinking.

“Once you start to reward work and tie saving incentives to work, then you are devaluing caregiving.”

Saving schemes are not tied to work they are tied to income. Nobody ever suggested saving schemes were tied to work. In the real world wealth matters. In the real world some people earn $17 an hour and some people earn $60 an hour. This is true even in contemporary communist countries. If Susan St John doesn’t like it she is free to move to North Korea. Nobody is stopping her. We might even fund raise to get her a one way ticket.

This is a typical feminist strategy.
Start with a fact and bend it all out of shape so you can justify your position.

This is supposed to be an intelligent person. An economics lecturer of all things! Apparently you don’t need to have a comprehension of what income is to be a female economics lecturer. Apparently when pushing feminist, socialist agendas it is perfectly OK to be delusional.

Shit it is real hard work for me to be a student. Obviously the tax payer should be not only subsidising my education but should also be paying into a savings scheme for me. I mean if you don’t, that just shows you don’t value education in this country.

Also it is hard work being in jail with nothing to do all day. The tax payer should cough up for criminals too – otherwise they are not valuing justice.

And another thing, it is not easy being a child. There is lots of work involved in learning about the world. If the tax payer doesn’t pay for children’s savings then it is just another demonstration that children are not valued in this country.

Oh and another thing – my computer has to work very hard. The tax payer should be paying into a fund to get it replaced.

Oh and another thing – I work hard all day but I can’t afford a car. The tax payer should by me a car. After all the tax payer has one.

Leave a Reply

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.